[PATCH] D123319: Change how we handle auto return types for lambda operator() to be consistent with gcc

Mon May 2 12:45:00 PDT 2022

dblaikie added a comment.

In D123319#3474997 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3474997>, @dblaikie wrote:

> In D123319#3473693 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3473693>, @shafik wrote:
>
>> In D123319#3473283 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319#3473283>, @dblaikie wrote:
>>
>>> ('scuse the delay)
>>>
>>> Baseline: I'm still not really sure this is the right direction. Is there a sound argument for why this change is suitable for lambdas, but not for other types? I believe all the situations that can happen with other types can happen with lambdas (& the other way around) with sufficiently interestingly crafted inputs.
>>
>> I had a couple of approaches but once I saw how gcc was handling it, I just went with consistency with gcc. I might have been missing some cases but I did not have other test case that I ran into issues with.
>
> What's the basic reproduction of the issue? Using that I can probably produce a non-lambda example that tickles the same bug & demonstrates why this should be generalized and/or fixed in lldb instead.

Ping on this ^

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319